Benchmark: no name - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="js-bottomBlock">
	<div class="alqs">
		<h3>Также ищут</h3>
		<ul class="alqs-col">
			<li class="alqs-item"></li>
		</ul>
	<nav>
		<div class="page-navig">
			<ul>
				<li></li>
			</ul>
		</div>
	</nav>
</div>
<div id="js-bottomBlock2">
	<div class="alqs">
		<h3>Также ищут</h3>
		<ul class="alqs-col">
			<li class="alqs-item"></li>
		</ul>
	<nav>
		<div class="page-navig">
			<ul>
				<li></li>
			</ul>
		</div>
	</nav>
</div>

Tests:

1
var node = document.querySelectorAll("#js-bottomBlock > div, #js-bottomBlock2 > div"); for (let i = 0; i < node.length; i++) { node[i].innerHTML = ''; }
2
var node = document.querySelectorAll("#js-bottomBlock > div, #js-bottomBlock2 > div"); for (let i = 0; i < node.length; i++) { node[i].parentNode.removeChild(node[i]); }
3
var node = document.querySelectorAll("#js-bottomBlock > div, #js-bottomBlock2 > div"); for (let i = 0; i < node.length; i++) { node[i].innerHTML = ''; node[i].parentNode.removeChild(node[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided `benchmark.json` file defines two types of benchmarks:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty, which means that no specific JavaScript code needs to be executed before running the benchmark tests.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: The provided HTML string represents the structure of the web page that will be used for the benchmark. It includes two `div` elements (`#js-bottomBlock` and `#js-bottomBlock2`) with a similar structure.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**: This test case uses `document.querySelectorAll()` to select all `div` elements within the specified HTML structure. It then loops through each selected element and sets its innerHTML to an empty string.
2. **Test Case 2**: This test case is identical to Test Case 1, but with an additional step: it also calls `parentNode.removeChild()` on each selected element after setting its innerHTML to an empty string.
3. **Test Case 3**: This test case combines the two steps from Test Cases 1 and 2.

**Library**

There is no specific JavaScript library mentioned in the provided code snippet, except for using the built-in `document` object and its methods (e.g., `querySelectorAll()`, `innerHTML`, `parentNode.removeChild()`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax. They only use standard JavaScript constructs.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare different approaches to clearing the contents of the selected `div` elements:

1. **Test Case 1**: Only sets innerHTML to an empty string.
2. **Test Case 2**: Sets innerHTML to an empty string and then removes the element from the DOM using `parentNode.removeChild()`.
3. **Test Case 3**: Combines both steps.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **Test Case 1 (innerHTML only)**:
	* Pros: Simple, lightweight, and fast.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient in terms of memory management or DOM manipulation.
2. **Test Case 2 (innerHTML + remove)**:
	* Pros: Ensures proper removal of elements from the DOM, which may be important for certain use cases.
	* Cons: Adds an extra step that can increase execution time and memory usage.
3. **Test Case 3 (combined)**:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of both approaches, potentially offering a balance between simplicity and efficiency.
	* Cons: May introduce additional complexity or overhead due to the combined steps.

**Other Considerations**

When designing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **DOM manipulation**: How efficient is the code in terms of manipulating the DOM?
* **Memory management**: Does the code manage memory effectively, avoiding unnecessary allocations or deallocations?
* **Browser consistency**: Are the results consistent across different browsers and versions?

In the context of MeasureThat.net, these considerations help ensure that the benchmark tests are representative of real-world performance scenarios.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for clearing `div` elements could include:

* Using a CSS approach (e.g., setting `display: none` or `visibility: hidden`)
* Utilizing a library or framework-specific method (if applicable)
* Employing a custom, optimized algorithm specific to the use case

However, these alternatives would likely be less common and might require additional context or information about the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Related benchmarks:

no name (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):